United States v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co.

258 F. 562, 169 C.C.A. 502, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1252
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 12, 1919
DocketNo. 3304
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 258 F. 562 (United States v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co., 258 F. 562, 169 C.C.A. 502, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1252 (5th Cir. 1919).

Opinions

PARDEE, Circuit Judge

(after stating the case as above). [1] The right of the United States to present a claim in a bankruptcy case at any time while the bankruptcy is pending and the funds thereof are not distributed cannot be. disputed.

[2] The right of the United States to claim priority under section 3466, R. S. (Comp. St. § 6372), was unquestionably modified and restricted by section 57j of the Bankruptcy Act (Comp. St. § 9641). Guarantee, etc., Company v. Title Guaranty, etc., Company, 224 U. S. 152-160, 32 Sup. Ct. 457, 56 L. Ed. 706. And see Robertson v. Howard, 229 U. S. 254, 33 Sup. Ct. 854, 57 L. Ed. 1174. Section 57j of the Bankruptcy Act reads as follows:

“Debts owing to the United States, a state,'a county, a district, or a municipality as a penalty or forfeiture shall not be allowed, except for the amount of the pecuniary loss sustained by the act, transaction, or proceeding out of which the penalty or forfeiture arose, with reasonable and actual costs occasioned thereby and such interest as may have accrued thereon according to law.”

Under the provision of this section it seems clear the right of the United States to claim the penalty or a forfeiture is denied, except as to the actual pecuniary loss suffered by the United States. The fine of $1,000 claimed in this case is unquestionably a penalty. C. C. §, 215. See Words and Phrases, vol. 6, verbo “Penalty’'; United States v. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398, 9 Sup. Ct. 99, 32 L. Ed. 480. As there is no question-'or suggestion that in the matter of this penalty the United States suffered any pecuniary loss, it cannot be allowed.

As to the costs claimed, a different question is presented, to wit, for the pecuniary loss suffered by the United States in the prosecution and conviction under which the penalty was inflicted. The suggestion made that the costs incurred in such prosecution should be in-[565]*565ciucied as a part of the penalty, because when awarded the matter was in the discretion of the court imposing the penalty, does not seem to need consideration. Under the showing made the United States suffered pecuniary loss in all the costs of the case which they paid or incurred in the prosecution of the suit.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to permit the United States to prove all their pecuniary loss as charged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Cox (In Re Cox)
33 B.R. 657 (M.D. Georgia, 1983)
Sawyer v. Barbour
300 P.2d 187 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
In re Banner Brewing Co.
24 F. Supp. 675 (E.D. Michigan, 1938)
People of Illinois ex rel. Ames v. Oppenheimer
85 F.2d 1002 (Seventh Circuit, 1936)
In Re Messenger's Merchants Lunch Rooms
85 F.2d 1002 (Seventh Circuit, 1936)
United States v. East
80 F.2d 134 (Eighth Circuit, 1935)
New York v. Irving Trust Co.
288 U.S. 329 (Supreme Court, 1933)
United States v. Elliott
57 F.2d 843 (Sixth Circuit, 1932)
In re Cuban-Atlantic Transport Corp.
57 F.2d 963 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Villere v. United States
18 F.2d 409 (Fifth Circuit, 1927)
Phelan v. Middle States Oil Corp.
15 F.2d 88 (N.D. Texas, 1926)
Reinecke v. General Combustion Co.
237 Ill. App. 404 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1925)
In re Brezin
297 F. 300 (D. New Jersey, 1924)
In re J. Menist Co.
294 F. 532 (Second Circuit, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 F. 562, 169 C.C.A. 502, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-birmingham-trust-savings-co-ca5-1919.